This writ petition challenged the Scrutiny Committee's order rejecting the Petitioner's Scheduled Tribe status. The court held the Committee justified in its inquiry, found no fault due to lack of parental statements, and dismissed the petition.
Petition dismissed; Rule discharged. No order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 7116 OF 2004
Mr.Chetan Prakash Thakur ...Petitioner
v/s
The State of Maharashtra
and ors.
...Respondents
...
Mr.P.K.Dhakephalkar with Mr.R.K.Mendadkar for
the Petitioner.
Mr.N.P.Pandit, AGP for Respondents Nos. 1 to
3.
DATED: 14th September, 2009
P.C.:
1.By this petition the Petitioner
challenges the order passed by the Committee
for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe
Claims,dated 27-7-2004 holding that the caste
certified relied on by the Petitioner for
2
claiming that he belongs to Thakur, Scheduled
Tribe is not valid.
2.The learned Counsel appearing for the
Petitioner assailed the validity of the order
of the Scrutiny Committee, which is the well
reasoned and the detailed order, firstly on
the ground that the Committee has not
properly considered the evidence on record.
He then submitted that it appears that there
were two reports by Vigilance Cell, one
submitted by the Vigilance Cell before the
Scrutiny Committee on 27-12-2002 and the
second report of the Vigilance Cell which was
submitted after the matter was remanded by
the High Court to the Scrutiny Committee.
According to the Petitioner, copy of the
first report was not supplied to the
Petitioner. It was then submitted that the
father and the mother of the Petitioner were
3
not interviewed by the Scrutiny Committee and
this, according to the learned Counsel is
contrary to the directions issued and
observations made by the Full Bench of this
Court in the case of Shilpa Vishnu Thakur
v/s. State of Maharashtra & ors, 2009 (3)
Mh.L.J., 995.
3.We have heard the learned Counsel for
the Respondent. Perusal of the order impugned
shows that the Scrutiny Committee has passed
a detailed order. The Vigilance Cell during
the course of the inquiry has visited the
original native place of the Petitioner at
village Dangri, Taluka: Amalner, District:
Jalgaon and recorded the statements of old
persons who knew the family of the
Petitioner. One of the persons whose
statement was recorded by the Vigilance Cell
was Shri Bhagwan Ananda Patil, who at that
4
time was 72 years of age. He stated that he
knew the Great Grand-father of the
Petitioner. He stated that his caste was
`Bhat� and his main profession was to settle
the marriages among the people. He also
stated that the Babulal Shenu Wankhede and
Sitaram Ganpat Thakur were closely related to
the family of the Petitioner. In the school
record the caste of the close relatives of
the Petitioner is recorded as Hindu Thakur
(Bhat). After the matter was remanded by the
High Court, again the Vigilance Cell
submitted the report on 16-12-2002, and at
that time the Vigilance Cell recorded the
statement of maternal grand-father of the
Petitioner. The maternal grand-father has
stated in his statement that the ancestral
profession of the family of the Petitioner is
seeking alms by visiting various villages
on horse, agriculture and agricultural
5
labour. Their mother tongue is Marathi and
surnames of their close relatives are also
mentioned. After conducting this inquiry and
after considering the material on record, the
Scrutiny Committee recorded a finding that
the Petitioner does not belong to Thakur
Scheduled Tribe.
4.What is pertinent to be noted here is
that though it is the contention of the
Petitioner that the report of the Vigilance
Cell submitted to the Scrutiny Committee on
earlier occasion before remand was not made
available to him. Perusal of the explanation
given by the Petitioner to the report of the
Vigilance Cell shows that the Petitioner has
dealt with even the first report of the
Vigilance Cell. It shows that the Petitioner
had the Vigilance Cell report even submitted
on the first occasion available to him. What
6
is further pertinent to be noted is that a
detailed statement made by Shri Bhagwan
Ananda Patil was relied on by the Vigilance
Cell. In relation to that statement in the
explanation the Petitioner does not say that
Shri Bhagwan Ananda Patil was not known to
his great grand-father. So far as the failure
of the Vigilance Cell to record the
statements of the father and the mother of
the Petitioner are concerned, in our opinion,
in view of the detailed statement made by the
maternal grand-father of the Petitioner, it
was not really necessary to record a
statement of the Petitioner�s father. The
material available on record clearly shows
that the Petitioner does not belong to
Thakur, Scheduled Tribe. In our opinion, in
view of the law laid down by the Full Bench
of this Court in its judgment in the case of
Shilpa, referred to above, the Scrutiny
7
Committee was justified in inquiring into the
affinity aspect while deciding the validity
of the caste certificate of the Petitioner.
In our opinion, in this view of the matter,
therefore, no fault can be found with the
order of the Scrutiny Committee. Petition,
therefore, fails and is dismissed. Rule
discharged. No order as to costs.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the order of the Scrutiny Committee rejecting the Petitioner's claim of belonging to Thakur Scheduled Tribe stands valid.
Whether the failure to record statements of the Petitioner's parents renders the Scrutiny Committee's order flawed.
Whether the Vigilance Cell report was available to the Petitioner before the Committee.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Shilpa Vishnu Thakur v/s. State of Maharashtra & orsReferred¶24
Shilpa Vishnu Thakur v/s. State of Maharashtra & ors, 2009 (3) Mh.L.J., 995 · Who else cites this
Shilpa Vishnu Thakur v/s. State of Maharashtra & orsReferred¶56
Shilpa, referred to above
Chetan Prakash Thakur
State of Maharashtra
P.C.
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court